Jim Harper may be “put off by the domestic political ramifications” of the continuing Ground Zero mosque debate --- linking to my three POLITICO Arena posts over the weekend, when the story broke, and Chris Preble’s very different Cato@Liberty post on Monday --- but that’s what this debate is all about. It’s not about the law or the Constitution, at bottom, because the law is clear: we respect the right to build that mosque there, even if it would not be prudent or wise to do so.
Thus, he misses the point when he cites “conservative icon Ted Olson” who, Jim says, “expresses well how standing by our constitutional values is good counterterrorism signaling.” That may or may not be good counterterrorism signaling, but those of us who oppose this mosque being situated there are standing by our constitutional values, contrary to the implication of Jim’s contention. We’re defending the right the Constitution protects, while engaging in the robust debate it equally protects --- arguing that building the mosque there, as Charles Krauthammer put it in this morning’s Washington Post, “is not just insensitive but provocative,” given the facts of the matter.
But that’s not the only non-sequitur in Jim’s argument. He goes on to say:
Islam did not attack the United States on 9/11. It is simple collectivism—the denial of individual agency that libertarians reject—to believe that the tiny band of thugs who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks speak for an entire religion, culture, or creed. Our sympathy to families of 9/11 victims and our vestigial fears should not allow us to indulge gross and wrong generalizations about individuals of any faith.
Who’s saying that? Does Jim believe that those of us on the other side cannot distinguish the 19 long-dead “tiny band of thugs” --- and all who supported them and continue to support what they did, as manifest around the world almost daily --- from the great majority of Muslims who do not support Islamic terrorism?
There is a problem in the other direction, however, with those who minimize or dismiss “our vestigial fears.” The war against terrorism, which we are likely to be in for some time, requires a sober assessment of the circumstances we’re facing, neither understating nor overstating them. And one aspect of that is public opinion, including opinion, in particular, in the Muslim-American community. This morning’s New York Times has a page-one story about the divide in that community over the mosque issue. It’s those in that community who understand this issue that we need to encourage to come forward and stand for true American principles --- including the principle that not everything a person has a right to do is right to do. It’s no more complicated than that.